[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [discuss] Individual representation

> [mailto:owner-discuss@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Randy Bush
> Sent: Sunday, June 27, 1999 7:17 AM
> To: Joop Teernstra
> > I must take issue with this view. Nobody should be called loud, just
> > because an opposing argument is advanced.
> while literally true, unfortunately there is a serious problem hidden
> nearby.

The argument that you forward here is one that's been floated before and
(IMHO) is one of the chief failings of the consensus model and the main
reason polling-based process work better in a larger audience. It
eliminates that part of the equation. In a large group, anyone can claim
consensus for their view and no one could dispute them. After all, where
are the poll results to prove them wrong, a lack of a loud hummmm?

There has been recent argument about the size of the participants herein
(these debates). But, I put the question to you; does any IETF WG
achieve the size and number of conflicting views that we have on these
issues before us? I would wager not. Consensus approaches do not scale
up easily and require supporting structures (polls, votes, and the

In the past week I have seen a lot of unsupportable claims made.
Actually, I have been seeing them for the past six months. Part of our
out-reach should be to set up opinion/consensus gathering mechnisms, if
not for access by the general public then for ourselves. At the least,
we need semi-formal infrastructure for these things. We can no longer
work by screaming at each other. The past two years have proven the
inefficacy of that approach.